|
Post by snow on Mar 21, 2015 10:28:05 GMT -5
A mother wants to see the face of the person she is trusting to take her kids to school. Would you entrust this person with your kids? The school board will have trained this driver on policy, screened her criminal and employment record, and she'll have passed a series of driving tests. The rest I don't care about. I don't really see any real safety issues in not being able to see the face. How reliable is our judgment of people we do see the entire face of? We don't know what goes on in that person's mind and we aren't any safer. People can hide emotions, be charismatic etc. that can totally hide a monster. The woman with a hidden face is really no different.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 21, 2015 10:44:42 GMT -5
I dunno. IF I was planning to rob a bank or store or whatever, I would consider wearing a complete covering like that. I guess the robbery would be illegal, unless somehow I could convince a judge that my religion requires it, but the mask and covering I used to protect my identity would be legal? hmmmm ok, ya, kinda ridiculous but.... I do have a right to wear what I want and if religion overrules common sense, then go for it. ? I think there are laws stating that we CANNOT wear, in public, whatever we DONT want- meaning lack of clothing as in running around buck naked or is it stark , so is that not taking away from my freedom ? Ban that law also ? It is my RIGHT to not wear clothing in public. Sure would spoil my robbery identification plan , though if I used that strategy as not hard to identify pot bellied long haired rough looking old teeth missing ex 2x2 Mennonite dude. I guess if you robbed the bank , naked, you would have broken TWO laws automatically for sure, instead of only one. so that sounds a bit tooooo sinful ... What to do. hmmmm guess rob the bank with a mask on is less illegal so .......? decisions decisions....... Alvin
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 21, 2015 11:00:02 GMT -5
I dunno. IF I was planning to rob a bank or store or whatever, I would consider wearing a complete covering like that. I guess the robbery would be illegal, unless somehow I could convince a judge that my religion requires it, but the mask and covering I used to protect my identity would be legal? hmmmm ok, ya, kinda ridiculous but.... I do have a right to wear what I want and if religion overrules common sense, then go for it. ? I think there are laws stating that we CANNOT wear, in public, whatever we DONT want- meaning lack of clothing as in running around buck naked or is it stark , so is that not taking away from my freedom ? Ban that law also ? It is my RIGHT to not wear clothing in public. Sure would spoil my robbery identification plan , though if I used that strategy as not hard to identify pot bellied long haired rough looking old teeth missing ex 2x2 Mennonite dude. I guess if you robbed the bank , naked, you would have broken TWO laws automatically for sure, instead of only one. so that sounds a bit tooooo sinful ... What to do. hmmmm guess rob the bank with a mask on is less illegal so .......? decisions decisions....... Alvin No it is not your right to go around naked or wear a balaclava into a bank - an obvious security threat. We make additional allowances for culture and religion. And you don't get to just say that your religion requires you to walk around naked. The Muslim religion and the niqab have been around for centuries. Bona fide religious expression is protected by our Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 21, 2015 12:20:15 GMT -5
The way I see it, if women want to work wearing the niqab and we don't like it, then we are the problem. We can't just go willy nilly banning things just because they are different and something we don't like. We are the ones holding these women back from integrating, holding down jobs etc. if we can't look past how they are dressed. You can't integrate a pair of eyes peering through a black blanket. I don't agree with this at all. The two ladies that I got to know quite well were very personable and I really liked them. We developed a pretty good relationship during the course of their ESL classes. I couldn't see their faces, but I could hear their voices and they were very kind sincere ladies. Maybe if more people would take the time to talk to these people instead of just writing them off because they don't show their face, more people would see that they are fundamentally the same as us. They love, they care about their loved ones, they want to live in peace etc. We had a lot in common.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 21, 2015 12:42:45 GMT -5
I agree, snow, one cannot judge a person character, one way or the other, by the clothes they are wearing. There are lots of men in dress suits and very nice "acceptable " appearance that wouldn't be "safe" to be around or be dependable at all. Alvin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2015 14:14:33 GMT -5
Smile, recognizing everyone's right to their own religious beliefs (which for me includes the claim of absence of such belief), having lived by that code and proven it by my witness over a longer lifetime than I ever thought I would have, and from the view of someone often employing others, unfortunately I cannot escape my own prejudices and both wonder and marvel at those who claim they can.
All other things equal, would I chose to hire someone who might be what I might perceive to be an embarrassment to the business which they were seeking to find employment? No. I simply would not. Being unable to pay financial penalties that may be involved, personally, I would chose to close the doors and go out of business. This being politically correct for some of us seems to be way out of control. What is the answer? I have my own belief that will only arrive after we all are reprogrammed.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 21, 2015 14:18:16 GMT -5
Here's an excellent documentary that gives the perspective of "the other Muslims", those who believe in a more moderate form of Islam. One that blends the tenets of their faith with the traditions of a liberal society.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 21, 2015 14:36:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 21, 2015 21:40:35 GMT -5
This isn't so much anything to do with a burka, but a man issue. Lots of women get killed for leaving their husbands because men still believe women are property. They have been killing women that dare to leave for centuries. You hear about this happening so much. Yet because this woman once wore a burka it's because of that? No, it's because she left, plain and simple and it doesn't matter what religion or non religion men happen to be it seems to happen.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 22, 2015 5:39:15 GMT -5
Do you seriously think a burqa ban would solve this issue?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 22, 2015 8:36:09 GMT -5
Do you seriously think a burqa ban would solve this issue? Using that logic a clothing ban would end this type of crime.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 22, 2015 10:32:04 GMT -5
Do you seriously think a burqa ban would solve this issue? Using that logic a clothing ban would end this type of crime. Honour killings are reprehensible. The reasons they occur are far deeper than a single piece of clothing. Our identities and feelings for one another are bound up in the traditions and culture we have assumed. A child leaving one's culture can be akin to losing the child. We're not so very far past this tyrannical aspect of culture in our own society. Conservative Christian parents still "disown" their gay children, which in many cases means loss of financial and moral support. Certainly killing your own children is far worse, but it's what happens in the context of a conservative religious environment. It is very important that we support women and children who are exiting a fundamentalist Muslim culture, and awareness of the issue is necessary also. With the amount of attention these cases receive in the media, justifiably so, awareness of the problem in the Muslim context isn't that much of an issue. On the other hand, we don't pay attention to male patriarchal violence within Conservative Christian culture nearly enough. Another 'cease and desist' order, ho hum. *sarcasm* I found my Dutch Reformed upbringing to be basically supportive and have many warm memories from childhood, but at the same time, have learned there were many horrendous stories of abuse of women who were essentially trapped in the culture. The same is true of Mennonite culture. I won't explain my understanding of the phenomena here, but Muslim culture exhibits the same issue, but moreso because people actually believe everything in the religion, whereas Christians today doubt much of what was believed true even 50 years ago. This has freed many modern Christians to think more progressively about their relationships and the fundamental nature of true compassion and empathy. The more conservative the culture, the more difficult it is to protect the weak and vulnerable. I don't think banning the culture, or aspects of the culture is the answer. All humankind is in the same boat, from my perspective, and we have to work toward progress across the world. Borders can be useful in keeping people out when they pose a clear and present danger. But doing so is admitting defeat of a sort; the cure may well be worse than the disease. So often we erect borders and boundaries in our minds that are un-necessary, in reaction to fear and anxiety, rather than a tangible and imminent danger.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 22, 2015 12:09:16 GMT -5
This was an interesting interview with CNN. I think Reza points out good reasons why we need to quit painting all Muslims with the same brush. The Wahhabi sect of Islam is the most extreme and it also happens to be the sect that rules Saudi Arabia which is the one Muslim country the world seems more inclined to support. This in itself has caused harm to moderate and liberal Muslims the world over. I am sure they are not impressed that an extreme version of Islam is being supported by the West.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Mar 22, 2015 13:42:45 GMT -5
Saudi Arabia is also where Mecca is so to get off side with the Saudi branch of Islam is to lose Mecca, the home of Islam.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 22, 2015 14:02:44 GMT -5
This was an interesting interview with CNN. I think Reza points out good reasons why we need to quit painting all Muslims with the same brush. The Wahhabi sect of Islam is the most extreme and it also happens to be the sect that rules Saudi Arabia which is the one Muslim country the world seems more inclined to support. This in itself has caused harm to moderate and liberal Muslims the world over. I am sure they are not impressed that an extreme version of Islam is being supported by the West. Snow, big differences remain between how you and I view these issues but I'm warming to the idea that Western support for Saudi Arabia might be counter-productive. The Sharia law that governs their society is brutal and inhumane, and their human rights record is abysmal. Perhaps even worse is their global mission to export Wahibism and Islamise the West. Ideally, Western governments need to support moderate Muslims and reject extreme Islam. How to implement that in practical geopolitical terms would be quite a challenge.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 22, 2015 14:42:03 GMT -5
This was an interesting interview with CNN. I think Reza points out good reasons why we need to quit painting all Muslims with the same brush. The Wahhabi sect of Islam is the most extreme and it also happens to be the sect that rules Saudi Arabia which is the one Muslim country the world seems more inclined to support. This in itself has caused harm to moderate and liberal Muslims the world over. I am sure they are not impressed that an extreme version of Islam is being supported by the West. Snow, big differences remain between how you and I view these issues but I'm warming to the idea that Western support for Saudi Arabia might be counter-productive. The Sharia law that governs their society is brutal and inhumane, and their human rights record is abysmal. Perhaps even worse is their global mission to export Wahibism and Islamise the West. Ideally, Western governments need to support moderate Muslims and reject extreme Islam. How to implement that in practical geopolitical terms would be quite a challenge. Yes Saudi is an example of the worst of Islam. They really aren't much different in mindset than ISIS. Difference they are a country in their own right and no one crosses them. As Mary also pointed out, Mecca is in Saudi and in order to go there they need to make sure they don't upset the Saudis. That puts moderate and liberal Muslims in a delicate situation if they want to comply with their religious beliefs which means going to Mecca during Ramadan. It's sure a complex issue in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 23, 2015 20:14:36 GMT -5
This was an interesting interview with CNN. I think Reza points out good reasons why we need to quit painting all Muslims with the same brush. The Wahhabi sect of Islam is the most extreme and it also happens to be the sect that rules Saudi Arabia which is the one Muslim country the world seems more inclined to support. This in itself has caused harm to moderate and liberal Muslims the world over. I am sure they are not impressed that an extreme version of Islam is being supported by the West. Saudi Arabia ?
Here is a couple of excerpts from Vanity Fair: "How was it possible that, just as President Bush declared a no-holds-barred global war on terror that would send hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, and just as Osama bin Laden became Public Enemy No. 1 and the target of a worldwide manhunt, the White House would expedite the departure of so many potential witnesses, including two dozen relatives of the man behind the attack itself?
"The incident is particularly important in light of the special relationship the Saudis have long had with the United States—and the Bush family in particular.
For decades, Saudi Arabia has been one of America’s two most powerful allies in the Middle East, not to mention an enormous source of oil.
The Bush family and the House of Saud, the two most powerful dynasties in the world, have had close personal, business, and political ties for more than 20 years.
In the 80s, when the elder Bush was vice president, he and Prince Bandar became personal friends.
Together, they lobbied through massive U.S. arms sales to the Saudis and participated in critical foreign-policy ventures. "
It has been investigated as to whether President W. Bush helped the wealthy Saudi family member to fly out of the US when there was actually a lock down on any air flights in the US right after 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 23, 2015 21:10:13 GMT -5
This was an interesting interview with CNN. I think Reza points out good reasons why we need to quit painting all Muslims with the same brush. The Wahhabi sect of Islam is the most extreme and it also happens to be the sect that rules Saudi Arabia which is the one Muslim country the world seems more inclined to support. This in itself has caused harm to moderate and liberal Muslims the world over. I am sure they are not impressed that an extreme version of Islam is being supported by the West. Saudi Arabia ?
Here is a couple of excerpts from Vanity Fair: "How was it possible that, just as President Bush declared a no-holds-barred global war on terror that would send hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, and just as Osama bin Laden became Public Enemy No. 1 and the target of a worldwide manhunt, the White House would expedite the departure of so many potential witnesses, including two dozen relatives of the man behind the attack itself?
"The incident is particularly important in light of the special relationship the Saudis have long had with the United States—and the Bush family in particular.
For decades, Saudi Arabia has been one of America’s two most powerful allies in the Middle East, not to mention an enormous source of oil.
The Bush family and the House of Saud, the two most powerful dynasties in the world, have had close personal, business, and political ties for more than 20 years.
In the 80s, when the elder Bush was vice president, he and Prince Bandar became personal friends.
Together, they lobbied through massive U.S. arms sales to the Saudis and participated in critical foreign-policy ventures. "
It has been investigated as to whether President W. Bush helped the wealthy Saudi family member to fly out of the US when there was actually a lock down on any air flights in the US right after 9/11.
Well someone got them out. They were the only ones allowed to fly, other than Bush that day. So I've heard anyway. I always wondered why they felt such an urgent need to get out of the States? Why did they need to leave that day?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 23, 2015 21:18:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 23, 2015 22:43:43 GMT -5
These two articles are great examples of what I have heard from the ladies in my ESL classes. They do not feel oppressed, they feel liberated. When I first had that said to me I was momentarily shocked. I had never looked at it that way before. I came away from those talks with those ladies with a whole different point of view. That is why I have been saying, 'get to know the person behind the veil'. They are no different from you and I, they just dress different. We have lots in common with them. Hire them, befriend them, expand your comfort zones. You won't be sorry.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 26, 2015 9:26:21 GMT -5
Well, one thing fixit and I do agree on is that we both admire Ayaan Hirsi Ali. So many of us will probably be interested to know that she's just released a new book. www.amazon.com/Heretic-Why-Islam-Needs-Reformation/dp/0062333933/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427379643&sr=8-1&keywords=hirsi+aliI've just ordered my copy. Continuing her journey from a deeply religious Islamic upbringing to a post at Harvard, the brilliant, charismatic and controversial New York Times and Globe and Mail #1 bestselling author of Infidel and Nomad makes a powerful plea for a Muslim Reformation as the only way to end the horrors of terrorism, sectarian warfare and the repression of women and minorities.
Today, she argues, the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims can be divided into a minority of extremists, a majority of observant but peaceable Muslims and a few dissidents who risk their lives by questioning their own religion. But there is only one Islam and, as Hirsi Ali shows, there is no denying that some of its key teachings—not least the duty to wage holy war—are incompatible with the values of a free society.
For centuries it has seemed as if Islam is immune to change. But Hirsi Ali has come to believe that a Muslim Reformation—a revision of Islamic doctrine aimed at reconciling the religion with modernity—is now at hand, and may even have begun. The Arab Spring may now seem like a political failure. But its challenge to traditional authority revealed a new readiness—not least by Muslim women—to think freely and to speak out.
Courageously challenging the jihadists, she identifies five key amendments to Islamic doctrine that Muslims have to make to bring their religion out of the seventh century and into the twenty-first. And she calls on the Western world to end its appeasement of the Islamists. “Islam is not a religion of peace,” she writes. It is the Muslim reformers who need our backing, not the opponents of free speech.
Interweaving her own experiences, historical analogies and powerful examples from contemporary Muslim societies and cultures, Heretic is not a call to arms, but a passionate plea for peaceful change and a new era of global toleration. In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo murders, with jihadists killing thousands from Nigeria to Syria to Pakistan, this book offers an answer to what is fast becoming the world’s number one problem.(from the publisher)
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Apr 11, 2015 19:23:40 GMT -5
I join whathat and fixit as a great admirer of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I just finished watching a video of her presentation to the National Press Club on Tuesday. I recommend it to all interested in her work. www.c-span.org/video/?325228-1/ayaan-hirsi-ali-national-press-club-luncheon-remarksI also had watched her interview with Jon Stewart a week or so ago. I do not have a link to that interview. Some may be interested in finding that video as well. Personally, I did not think that Jon Stewart did a very good job in the interview, it seemed to me to be an agenda driven rather than information/knowledge driven interview. Would be interested in other points of view.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 11, 2015 23:54:10 GMT -5
I join whathat and fixit as a great admirer of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I just finished watching a video of her presentation to the National Press Club on Tuesday. I recommend it to all interested in her work. www.c-span.org/video/?325228-1/ayaan-hirsi-ali-national-press-club-luncheon-remarksI also had watched her interview with Jon Stewart a week or so ago. I do not have a link to that interview. Some may be interested in finding that video as well. Personally, I did not think that Jon Stewart did a very good job in the interview, it seemed to me to be an agenda driven rather than information/knowledge driven interview. Would be interested in other points of view. I think she has a very good handle on the issue. Here's what she seemed to be saying: It's about the separation of religion and politics. Islamism is a political ideology. Not a problem that is new to America, and that can't be defeated. We need to choose to defeat it. America and the West have an incoherent approach to the Middle East. We need to persuade ordinary Muslims that Sharia is the wrong way to go, and offer an alternative. We're not informing ordinary Muslims of what America is really about. Here's the interview with Jon Stewart: Jon Stewart came across as pretty ignorant of the subject matter. He went on about the reformation, but it would have been more relevant to talk about the enlightenment.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 12, 2015 6:25:22 GMT -5
Jon Stewart came across as pretty ignorant of the subject matter. He went on about the reformation, but it would have been more relevant to talk about the enlightenment. This is not one of Stewart's better interviews, however, to be fair, the title of Ali's book is "Heretic, Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now." I think the point Stewart was trying to make is similar to yours - that the use of the word "reformation" suggests a confusing historical reference....bringing up the Enlightenment might have helped Stewart make his point more effectively.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2015 7:02:40 GMT -5
I join whathat and fixit as a great admirer of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I just finished watching a video of her presentation to the National Press Club on Tuesday. I recommend it to all interested in her work. www.c-span.org/video/?325228-1/ayaan-hirsi-ali-national-press-club-luncheon-remarksI also had watched her interview with Jon Stewart a week or so ago. I do not have a link to that interview. Some may be interested in finding that video as well. Personally, I did not think that Jon Stewart did a very good job in the interview, it seemed to me to be an agenda driven rather than information/knowledge driven interview. Would be interested in other points of view. My wife and I also saw the interview. Stewart was awkward to say the least. In fairness to his guest he should have been better prepared. I'm reading the book and have a few reservations about it, but as an internal critique it holds up well. The problem is that she makes summary judgements like "violence is at the root of Islam" and then makes much more nuanced claims and factual findings. For example, that only Medina Muslims have a violent theology, and that 97% of Muslims are moderate. (I have to check these quotes against the book).
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Apr 12, 2015 7:31:45 GMT -5
My wife and I also saw the interview. Stewart was awkward to say the least. In fairness to his guest he should have been better prepared. I'm reading the book and have a few reservations about it, but as an internal critique it holds up well. The problem is that she makes summary judgements like "violence is at the root of Islam" and then makes much more nuanced claims and factual findings. For example, that only Medina Muslims have a violent theology, and that 97% of Muslims are moderate. (I have to check these quotes against the book). Thanks whathat. I have not picked-up her most recent book yet but do look forward to reading more about her perspective. It is interesting that you, fixit and matisse all saw Jon Stewart as being ill prepared for the interview. My sense of the interview was different, his dogged pursuit of a specific theme suggested to me an intent to follow a pre-determined agenda. Although I stand on the other side of the political spectrum, Jon Stewart is an impressive intellect and a quick study on most topics. I recognize his time on the Daily Show was drawing to a close but I don't think that explains the nature of the interview. Interesting how each viewer carries a different perspective. I do expect that this interview blunted interest for many in his audience. I did look up the Washington Post article referenced in the National Press Club presentation. It is not particularly well written but it does expand on the ideological process that informs much of the information we consume. Here is the link: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-the-honor-brigade-an-organized-campaign-to-silence-critics-of-islam/2015/01/16/0b002e5a-9aaf-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 12, 2015 8:22:18 GMT -5
<snip> It is interesting that you, fixit and matisse all saw Jon Stewart as being ill prepared for the interview. My sense of the interview was different, his dogged pursuit of a specific theme suggested to me an intent to follow a pre-determined agenda. Although I stand on the other side of the political spectrum, Jon Stewart is an impressive intellect and a quick study on most topics. I recognize his time on the Daily Show was drawing to a close but I don't think that explains the nature of the interview. Interesting how each viewer carries a different perspective. I do expect that this interview blunted interest for many in his audience. I don't intend this, in any way, to plunge the thread into a "no I didn't/yes you did"! But I didn't say that I thought JS was ill prepared! :-) I agree that there was something "dogged" happening during the interview, I don't know about the "pre-determined agenda". It seemed to me like Ali wasn't able to hear what Jon was saying. And now, let me quickly agree with you that it is interesting how each viewer carries a different perspective! Thanks for the additional link.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Apr 12, 2015 8:44:13 GMT -5
I don't intend this, in any way, to plunge the thread into a "no I didn't/yes you did"! But I didn't say that I thought JS was ill prepared! :-) I agree that there was something "dogged" happening during the interview, I don't know about the "pre-determined agenda". It seemed to me like Ali wasn't able to hear what Jon was saying. And now, let me quickly agree with you that it is interesting how each viewer carries a different perspective! Interesting, my impression was that Ayaan Hirsi Ali became frustrated as a consequence of unmet expectations. I presume she was booked to discuss her book and not the medieval history of Christianity. I thought she heard and responded reasonably well to the parallel Jon drew the first time but that she became impatient with the repetitive nature of a theme that was at best tangentially related to the theme of her book. Your take may be correct. I would enjoy hearing a well informed debate comparing the state of lay and clerical medieval Christianity with modern day Islam and how reformation informs the continued development of a religion. Could be quite interesting considering the commonalities between the religions.
|
|